So this is what it's come to...

Quentin Rowe

So, currently, the US is hosting the world's largest naval excercises from Hawaii (RIMPAC 2012).

The New Zealand navy, amongst the other 22 nations participating, has been refused entry to Pearl Harbour, instead being made to moor its two participating vessels in the 'tourist' quarter of the harbour. How quaint!

So what did we do for this dubious honour? Oh, that's it - we took a stand against insanity. A stand against Weapons of Mass Destruction, and said "not in our waters".

I'm confused - I thought the US was a 'leader', not a 'follower'. For what is a policy of nuclear retaliation, other than following? A vengeance weapon. You launch against us, we will launch against you. And we mean it! Not kidding! We will do it - that is our policy.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the United States of America ANTI Weapons of Mass Destruction? Well, clearly NOT, because you HAVE them, and it is your official poicy to USE them if necessary. You send forth a mixed and confusing message all across the world.

There are those of us* on this planet who recognise how utterly useless atomic weapons are. The kind of folks you might find on the tourist side of Honolulu harbour. It seems we have been placed in good and appropriate company.

So I've got a question for US politicians and voters to consider this election...

Are you with us* or against us*?

* - Us: Those who recognise the useless insanity and hypocrisy of nuclear weapons.

Haven't forgotten you other crazies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nz-navy-refused-entry-pearl-harbour-4954006

Comments

While it's certainly not an excuse, it helps to understand part of what constitutes the American fantasy. In my view, Americans view themselves separately and distinctly from everyone else because they have adopted the position that they are "the good guys".

I mean this quite literally, because it provides a position whereby they simply presume that they are incapable of doing anything evil. Therefore if they possess weapons of mass destruction, it is only because the "bad guys" force them to do so. If they use those weapons, it is the "bad guys" that initiated the need.

When you are perceived as unerringly "good", then [by definition] you can do nothing evil or wrong. Again, this is my view, but it helps illustrate the apparent split between what Americans typically say they support versus the things they actually do.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the United States of America ANTI Weapons of Mass Destruction?

No, I believe that is wrong. The United States is ANTI Weapons of Mass Destruction in the hands of people we don't like [today]. Let's keep in mind that the Weapons of Mass Destruction we were going on about regarding Saddam Hussein [that were used on the Kurds] were sold to him by the U.S. In truth, every conceivable weapon of mass destruction [chemical, biological, or nuclear] already exists within the United States. Certainly it has been argued that this is necessary in order to find effective solutions in the event that they are used against us. However, judging from the anthrax fiasco, it is clear that we aren't doing much to protect and we don't really know what we're doing on the defense side of those issues. This suggests, that we're probably much better prepared at using those weapons than we are at defending against them.

Gerhard Adam | 07/03/12 | 06:33 AM

Link

When was the last time America used WMD's against anyone?

What we really have is a deterrent, not vengeance. As for the C&B, we might be better prepared, but I'd suggest we've never really considered any use case, Chemical weapons haven't been used by the US since WW1 (if we even used them then). We did sell them to Saddam, but that was as a hedge against Iran, who was getting arms from Russia. But once he started using them indiscriminately he was sanctioned.
While Saddam didn't have a stockpile of WMD's, the common thought that he was harmless was wrong.

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/03/12 | 09:57 AM

Link

What we really have is a deterrent, not vengeance.

Most countries that possess such weapons use exactly the same rationale.

Chemical weapons haven't been used by the US since WW1 ...

Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by chemical. Do you consider Agent Orange a chemical weapon?

We did sell them to Saddam, but that was as a hedge against Iran...

Sorry, but what does that mean? It would've been OK to use them against Iran? I'm sorry, but the U.S. policy regarding WMD has always been one of convenience. We don't trust anyone and think that we should be the only ones that have them. However, when we were the only ones that had them, we also used them. It isn't hard to make an argument that we've become more restrained, because there are more countries that are capable of retaliation.

Let's not forget that the use of nuclear weapons was discussed during the Viet Nam war. I can't help but wonder if their usage would've been more likely if there weren't countries that would've used them in return [i.e. China and Soviets].

I know that many people will disagree with me, but the U.S. has always managed to do the very things they would be upset about if anyone else did them. We abhor willful aggression, but it's somehow different when we instigate the invasion. Then we are only being pre-emptively "safe". We tend to exaggerate almost everything regarding warfare.

I can't believe how a country this large can be so obsessed over such a petty domain as N. Korea. Yet to listen to the politicians and others talk, you'd think we were at the height of the Cold War with the Soviets. In our paranoia, we are becoming the very source of aggression we claim to be opposed to. It makes us appear arrogant and unreasonable.

N. Korea is ultimately China's problem and they will reign them in when they become too boisterous. In addition, there are plenty of other countries over there that also don't want to see any overt aggression occur from N. Korea, so the U.S. can rest easy. There isn't going to being any N. Korean "D-Day" on the beaches of California any time soon.

Similarly our aggression regarding Iran and their nuclear program. The fact of the matter is that we initiated a specific and serious cyber-attack that ran for over two years in Iran. The very act that we consider to be an "act of war". It's another demonstration of how we want to impose a standard on the rest of the world that we don't think applies to us. We are not now, nor have we been in a state of war with Iran. By what logic does that make anyone think we had the right to sabotage their computer systems [Stuxnet and FLAME virus].

Gerhard Adam | 07/03/12 | 10:39 AM

Link

Mi Cro,

Yes, the US has a deterence policy via WMD's - this I am acknowleging. Yet you skip around explaining why this isn't vengeance. My arguement is simply stated. Please explain how this cannot be interpreted as a vengeance policy. Or do your leaders coldly order the deaths of millions who have little to do with these decisions. "Just doing my job, ma'am, thank me later."

You do realise, that if you have been attacked in any way, shape or form, the policy has clearly failed. Retaliation can only be seen as vengeance. Don't kid yourself!

The question is, do you support WMD's or not. According to your comments, yes you do. Do you realise you are condoning the potential murder of millions of human beings, and if so, how did you arrive at this position? This is the real issue I am raising - how is it that your position on WMD's has become so casually normalised?

And by the way, those NZ navy ships currently in Honolulu harbour carry no WMD's. Remember, that is why we won't let US warships in our harbours.

Quentin Rowe | 07/05/12 | 06:43 AM

Link

If we are attacked, the policy did fail, but for the policy to work, an attacker must know that we have the weapons and the will to retaliate. If they have have any concern for their country, they won't attack us.

IMO this is why terrorist getting a nuke from say NK who would sell one to them is such a concern, and why we care what the pinhead there does. I find people who don't understand that confusing, we're not worried about a NK invasion, or even an icbm raining down on the west coast of American, because we'd know where it came from, and we have more than enough weapons to retaliate.

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/05/12 | 08:13 AM

Link

I know how a retaliation policy is supposed to work, and does work to some degree, but at what cost? The generals and politicians have no problems treating millions of citizens as pawns in a high stakes game. Look at NK, do you really think it's their citizens who chose to build their WMD's?

Once again, you avoid actually addressing the issues I am bringing up.

Why don't you stand ready on the button, and then afterwards, you can cruse the streets of destruction and think about what was that really all about.

The NK's have reduced themselves to needy children, and they use negative mechanisms to attract attention. It's quite obvious to me, the US deterence policy has no bearing on their political decisions at all.

Quentin Rowe | 07/05/12 | 08:39 AM

Link

What are the options?
Ignore them at the risk of them selling a nuke to some terrorist group?
Invade them at a huge cost of life and treasure?

It's sort of like helping your junky brother out by giving him money in the hopes that at least some of it will go to feed his children, and knowing that most of it won't.

What are the options?
How many people are you willing to risk getting killed by a nuke he sells?
And of course you can feel pretty safe that it won't get detonated in NZ, I don't feel quite so sure it won't get detonated in the US.

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/05/12 | 08:41 AM

Link

I'm not talking about NK's WMD's, I'm talking about USA's WMD's.

Please address the issues I want addressed.

Quentin Rowe | 07/05/12 | 09:10 AM

Link

Okay fine.
First let me point out that the US has reduced it's nuclear arsenal substantially.

But as long as there are places like Nk and soon to be Iran (most likely), I personally have no issue with maintaining enough weapons to act as a deterrent.

When the last country that has proclaimed it's desire to bomb their neighbors with nukes, disassembles the last of their weapons (or stops their weapons program), then it might be time to disassemble ours.

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/05/12 | 09:31 AM

Link

But as long as there are places like Nk and soon to be Iran (most likely), I personally have no issue with maintaining enough weapons to act as a deterrent.

Sorry, but that's complete nonsense. U.S. use of a nuclear weapon in anything but the most extreme of circumstances when make them a pariah to the rest of the world. Therefore, there is no deterrent, because the burden of evidence/proof to connect a country to the act would be nearly insurmountable. More to the point, it fails to recognize that a nuclear weapon is too indiscriminate in killing civilians, so that it would be nearly impossible to rationalize except in scenarios of all-out war.

So, again, there simply is no deterrent effect.

The simple truth is that if Iran delivered a nuclear weapon by sailing into New York City on a ship flying the Iranian flag, there would still be little support for the idea of using nuclear weapons in retaliation. Anyone that believes otherwise has been watching too many Chuck Norris movies.

To use a nuclear weapon would serve no purpose except for dramatic effect, and it would simply illustrate that the U.S. is still too immature to properly deal with them. This, of course, relates to your point about having "enough weapons" to act as a deterrent. Let me put it this way. only ONE would ever be used. After that, all credibility and support would instantly disappear.

Gerhard Adam | 07/05/12 | 11:28 AM

Link

When the last country that has proclaimed it's desire to bomb their neighbors with nukes, disassembles the last of their weapons (or stops their weapons program), then it might be time to disassemble ours.

You represent my point well: The US no longer knows how to lead!

Quentin Rowe | 07/05/12 | 21:23 PM

Link

Ignore them at the risk of them selling a nuke to some terrorist group?

What makes you think that there's a coherent policy in place to prevent that? That would be as silly as the ATF selling weapons to Mexican drug dealers [oops ... wait that did happen].

We need to recognize that security does not entail engaging the rest of the world in warfare. If we want to protect our borders, then let's do so. If we want to be more diligent in our security regarding terrorism then let's do so. We certainly spend enough money on intelligence agencies and defense, that you'd think someone would actually know what they're doing.

The problem is that we don't really want to do any of those things. The 9/11 terrorists were already on watch lists, so what was the missing ingredient; ... the will to actually do something. We aren't serious about security and we will never get serious about security, because it actually costs money. That's far more important than the lives it may cost [sorry, just me being cynical].

After all, how do you explain an ability to spend billions on intelligence and yet have little or none? Why insist on spending more and more on weapons systems that no nation on Earth can confront? Why do you think there are terrorists? They exist because it is the only way to wage war under such circumstances. I made the same prediction when U.S. troops were speeding their way to Baghdad. Instead of patting ourselves on the back, I asked, what made anyone think that Saddam's military was going to stand 'toe-to-toe' with the U.S. military? I suggested that they would likely fade into the background and emerge as urban guerrilla fighters just to make life miserable. They wouldn't expect to win, but rather they would attempt to demoralize the effort.

Ironically they won far more than they even realize and the U.S. [or at least most Americans] haven't even realized their losses yet. It was a stupid, horrible, costly mistake that will be paid for in the decades to come.

Gerhard Adam | 07/05/12 | 11:19 AM

Link

BTW ... from the link you provided:

A dictator whose regime had had, as the 9/11 Commission has documented, frequent contacts with al Qaeda. We have no conclusive evidence that he collaborated with al Qaeda on 9/11—but also no conclusive evidence that he did not.

That's got to be one of the strangest rationalizations I've ever heard regarding mounting a war of aggression.

Gerhard Adam | 07/05/12 | 07:00 AM

Link

If the US had invaded Iraq, after Iraq invaded Kuwait, I very much doubt there would have been any opposition, and probably plenty of support.

What shocked me post 9/11, and most of the rest of the world, was this strange politician's dance of obvious lies and deception about WMD's in Iraq, basically over stating the case. Why did the US&UK think they had to lie to it's allies to go ahead with this invasion? Tony Blair's role was obvious - thanks for backing us up in WW2, here's our chance to return the favour, plus god know's what other perks that came with the deal. Bush, just want to be the man, kick some ass!

And of course, all the while, both players have their fingers on the triggers of WMD's with far greater destructive power than Iraq's imaginary arsenal.

Quentin Rowe | 07/05/12 | 07:34 AM

Link

Either you really do understand (even if you don't agree), or again I find it very confusing.

Let me make an analogy to see if I can make it any clearer.
You and your family live in an area that might have rattlesnakes, and one day while your child is out playing, or doing their chores, they get bite by one.
Do you find only the snake that bite your child, or do you clear your yard of as many snakes as you can find?

As for the strange rationalization, it's much like in the post to Quentin, Saddam had reason to want to strike out at the US, as best as we could tell he did have WMD's, and he had dealings with people who would do his dirty work for him with only circumstantial evidence leading back to him (and there by making a retaliatory strike morally questionable), much like the other snakes, the risk equation for leaving them alone changed.

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/05/12 | 08:29 AM

Link

It's very telling that you should equate your fellow human beings with snakes.

Quentin Rowe | 07/05/12 | 08:33 AM

Link

lol, really?

And how would you describe Saddam and the various terrorists who detonate trucks full of explosives in busy markets full of women and children?

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/05/12 | 08:46 AM

Link

Well, you are demonstating that you are disconnected from the issue. Equating people with snakes. Not addressing the potential for megacide that you endorse. You just aren't addressing the issues I brought up, except acknowledging that a retaliation policy can be a spectacular failure.

And to answer your question on how to deal with the snakes in the yard, so as to protect your family: It's obvious - a 'small' 1 megaton h-bomb should do the trick! WARNING: There may be some collatoral damage...

Quentin Rowe | 07/05/12 | 09:05 AM

Link

Oh, BTW we didn't nuke our backyard, we dug the snake out of it's spider hole, turned it over to the people it terrorized for what 30+ years, they gave it a trial, and then hung it.

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/05/12 | 11:04 AM

Link

...turned it over to the people it terrorized for what 30+ years...

Please ... let's stop with the revisionism. We supported Saddam when it suited us, especially during those 30+ years when he was terrorizing his people, so let's not suddenly pretend that we're the white knight saving anyone. His "terrorism" was a direct result of OUR support.

http://archive.truthout.org/article/when-hussein-was-our-ally

Our policy has always been the questionable "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". It's bitten us more than once.

Gerhard Adam | 07/05/12 | 11:09 AM

Link

We weren't any ones white knight, and you can say you don't understand how the risk assessment of Saddam changed after 9/11, but it makes sense to me, and has nothing to do with our nuclear arsenal.

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/05/12 | 11:24 AM

Link

I'm not buying your red-herring of self-created scumbag dictators. It's not addressing the issue. What can I say - you come from a christian nation - what don't you understand about "you reap what you sow"?

So let me put it this way then - Repeat after me:

(you can stand and put your hand on your heart if you wish)

"I, Mi Cro, do solemely & sincerely declare on this glorious day/night of the 6th of July 2012, to my loved ones, to my closest friends & family, to the little girl next door, to my extended network of friends around the globe, and to the citizens all across this beautiful planet, the following:"

"I do hereby endorse and condone, via weapons of mass destruction, the violent & indescriminate destruction of city upon city, suburb upon marketplace, bazaar upon cafeteria, office block upon gym, pre-school, upon high-school upon colledge, deli upon fruit store, and any other legitimitly percieved threat."

"Futhermore, I declare myself willing, either directly, or by proxy, via the mechanisms and apparatus made available by the engineers and scientists and politicians of my nation, to flip the switch that would innitiate the process of annilation, via terrible violent death, of not tens, not hundreds, not thousands, but of millions of my fellow human beings, the vast majority of whom have no say in the machinery of destruction that will bring them to their end."

Is this, or is this not your position? My intention here is for you and those you represent, to face up to exactly what you actually represent, instead of glossing over it. That's all. Simple.

The reason for my response to your snake analogy, is that the first act of war is to dehumanise your 'enemy'. This is common knowledge.

Quentin Rowe | 07/05/12 | 21:14 PM

Link

Chasing alligators at work.

I, Mi Cro, do solemnly&sincerely declare on this glorious day/night of the 6th of July 2012, to my loved ones, to my closest friends&family, to the little girl next door, to my extended network of friends around the globe, and to the citizens all across this beautiful planet, the following:

I do hereby endorse and condone, via weapons of mass destruction, the violent&indiscriminate destruction of city upon city, suburb upon marketplace, bazaar upon cafeteria, office block upon gym, pre-school, upon high-school upon college, deli upon fruit store, and any other legitimately perceived threat.

Furthermore, I declare myself willing, either directly, or by proxy, via the mechanisms and apparatus made available by the engineers and scientists and politicians of my nation, to flip the switch that would initiate the process of annihilation, via terrible violent death, of not tens, not hundreds, not thousands, but of millions of my fellow human beings, the vast majority of whom have no say in the machinery of destruction that will bring them to their end, if any one of of my loved ones, family, friends, acquaintances who wear while hats, or live in NZ die in Nuclear fire (whether they want me to or not, got to keep up appearances).

Now, the millions of causalities is likely over stated, a 1 megaton device lit off at @ ~1mile alt causes approximately the damage listed below(from memory from a couple decade ago):

~1mile from ground zero(gz), without shielding the prompt dose is likely fatal, but the heat from x-rays interacting with the air will kill you first. If you're not killed from the heat, you most likely not going to die from radiation from the event.

~5 miles from gz, most structures are destroyed.

Between ~5 and 10-12 miles concrete and brick are more likely to be left standing, with damage proportional to distance.

Between 10-15 miles from gz, wood structures start to survive, glass windows is broken out to 15+ miles.

Outside the lethal thermal/radiation zone at gz, there will be burns and physical trauma from flying/fall debris and such.

Lastly, you have to protect yourself from fallout, anything to keep any ash off your skin, off your food and not breathing it. As long as you don't breath it, clean water will wash it off your skin and your food.

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/06/12 | 10:33 AM

Link

Chasing alligators at work.

Perhaps the snake analogy does make a bit more sense then :) Apparently you live a decidedly reptilian kind of existence.

Gerhard Adam | 07/06/12 | 10:40 AM

Link

It's either eat or be eaten........

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/06/12 | 10:46 AM

Link

We need more people like you Mi Cro, willing to stand up and state your position, instead of hiding behind weasel words.

You know, my city, here in New Zealand, it's whole city centre, plus a few of it's outer suburbs, has been wiped out by a series of earthquakes in 2010/11. Many buildings fell, causing the deaths of hundreds of women, children&men. Thousands more buildings are currently being demolished, all the way from high rise office blocks down to supermarkets and public swimming pools. I've never seen such utter destruction up close and personal before. The loss of infrastructure and the ongoing effects of recovery, both economcally and physcologically, are still being counted.

And yet to know this is but a fraction of the destruction just one WMD can unleash is sobering.

Anyway it's nice to (knowingly) meet my first psychopath! ;-)

Quentin Rowe | 07/06/12 | 20:46 PM

Link

Well for the ruse to work, the other side has to think you're a psychopath :)

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/10/12 | 09:12 AM

Link

Now, the millions of causalities is likely over stated,

Well, to be fair, I'm assuming more than one target. After all, with all those buttons to push, why stop at one?

It's pretty well known psycopaths aren't renowned for their moderation.

Quentin Rowe | 07/06/12 | 20:56 PM

Link

Ever get into an elevator in a tall building only to find all of the buttons pushed? Boy does that tick me off ;)

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/10/12 | 09:15 AM

Link

Do you find only the snake that bite your child, or do you clear your yard of as many snakes as you can find?

That's a very telling analogy. Unlike most Americans, I don't blame the snake. It does little or no good to find the snake in question, unless it's simply a matter of removing poisonous snakes from the yard. If it's the latter, then it doesn't require a snake-bite to make that a concern. If it is the snake-bite that is the motivating factor, then I have to admit, I can never really know which snake did the biting.

That's what the U.S. perpetually fails to understand. We have more people killed every year by Americans killing other Americans than any terrorist could ever accomplish. In truth, my odds of being killed by a terrorist rather than another American are rather tiny.

Saddam had reason to want to strike out at the US ...

Utter nonsense. Never in his wildest dreams did Saddam Hussein ever possess the weaponry or the means by which to strike at the U.S. At his absolute best, he could only hope to strike at neighboring countries in the Middle East.

The fact of the matter is that neither pre-emptory strikes, nor "questionable dealings" are anything except highly questionable philosophical positions from which to engage in this argument. If you truly believed any of this, then would you support such an attitude for individual citizens [should citizens be able to pre-emptively defend themselves]? If not, then why should it be acceptable for nations?

The simple truth is that if any other country judged the U.S. according to the exact same standards we would be horrified that they would think they could meddle in our internal affairs. Apparently what the U.S. does is nobody's business, while what other nation's do is the U.S.'s business.

While you may think that it's a perfectly good policy, and you may think that it's proper, but let's not pretend that it's anything except a "might makes right" approach to world politics.

Gerhard Adam | 07/05/12 | 11:04 AM

Link

No, I believe that is wrong. The United States is ANTI Weapons of MassDestruction in the hands of people we don't like [today].

Yeah, I knew that... :-)

I'm just tired of the hypocrisy, tired of the normalisation of mass death&destruction, tired of the casual dismisal of any criticism, especially that national policies don't stand up to any logic. It's just plain old PR, still hanging over from WW2, when it was acceptable and common practice to wipe our millions of people for idealogical reasons.

When is the US going to realise it has lost it's ability to lead simply because of it's policies of hypocrisy?
I believe it is that simple. That's how people work - they recognise hypocrisy. Especially people who communicate, and that's what we are doing a lot more now than in any time in history.

Quentin Rowe | 07/05/12 | 07:04 AM

Link

Way to go fellow NZ'er!
I was going to write an article like that at some stage, but you beat me to it. Most of the points seem to have already been made, but I think I should add that even if you accept the deterrent argument, then in this current situation a country with say 10 warheads would have just as effective a deterrent as one with 10,000. As a consequence I can see no reason to not urgently reduce a countries stockpile to such a level. Given we are a long way from such a situation deterrent arguments at this stage seem irrelevant. Its not like the US, Russia or anyone else would make themselves more vulnerable if they unilaterally reduced their stockpile to such a level.

—

Thor Russell

Thor Russell | 07/05/12 | 22:22 PM

Link

Thanks Thor,

I was expecting to get totally nuked for that blog. Great back-up from Gerhard too. Hope Mi Cro's not taking it personally - he's been representin' well!

Your point of the few-versus-the-many WMD's is demonstrated best by North Korea. So much effect for so little effort!

Quentin Rowe | 07/06/12 | 06:58 AM

Link

In all out war, you'd expect a wave of weapons targeting your weapons, so you make more, and play hide the button with them.

But that said, we should reduce our stockpiles, a few hundred or a thousand or so seems to be a reasonable way point. But also more than a dozen doesn't matter either really, as long as you keep them in a safe place. At some point in time 10 or zero might be enough, but I don't think that "waiting is full" yet.

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/06/12 | 10:44 AM

Link

OK but how urgently do you support doing such a reduction? Would you be all in favor of a unilateral policy to reduce your stockpile to such a level, leading Russia in the process, or would you call a politician that suggested it a dreamer?It should be clear that the faster the US reduces stockpiles, the faster Russia will do also even if it lags. At say 2050 I would regard the residual nukes as a pretty significant threat to our well being because we don't know what will have happened by then, and the more nukes there are, the more chance there is of them getting "lost".

—

Thor Russell

Thor Russell | 07/06/12 | 16:59 PM

Link

I hate to say it, but there is no reasonable aspect to such a discussion. Everyone pretty well agrees that even firing one nuclear missile, or detonating one nuclear weapon would have profound ramifications, worldwide. It would be taking an irrevocable step into the future which would likely have disastrous consequences.

So, to contemplate exploding more than one is practically madness from any reasonable perspective. Therefore, logically one would have to conclude that it makes no sense to possess hundreds, since that is basically a suicide pact with any attacker, so there can't be any reasonable expectation that they would ever be used or that they are ever a practical retaliatory option.

Consequently the only conclusion I can draw is that regardless of the level of disarmament, the U.S. would never disarm itself, except perhaps to eliminate obsolete weapons. Perhaps with fewer weapons in the rest of the world, the U.S. arsenal might get smaller, but you would never see it reach zero.

Again, it's the "good guy" syndrome. The U.S. doesn't feel the need to reduce weapons levels, because of the implicit belief that "we would never use them", so therefore it isn't wrong to have them.

Gerhard Adam | 07/06/12 | 17:07 PM

Link

Consequently the only conclusion I can draw is that regardless of the level of disarmament, the U.S. would never disarm itself,

Sadly true on the current trajectory. You know how it is - "Careful, or you may end up exactly where you are heading!"

My intention, via discussions such as this, is to remind folks how to look at things in a simpler light.

Again, it's the "good guy" syndrome. The U.S. doesn't feel the need toreduce weapons levels, because of the implicit belief that "we wouldnever use them", so therefore it isn't wrong to have them.

You know, I've certainly bought into this "good guy" syndrome. Yet when you look at the rhetoric, it's a PR campaigne selling mega-extremism as a middle-of-the-road, softly-softly approach. How do we fall for this crap!

Nevertheless, the spell still lingers ;-)

Quentin Rowe | 07/06/12 | 20:22 PM

Link

How do we fall for this crap!

We fall for it because it's true for us individually. The majority of people are basically "good guys" and would never think of using such weapons. So we rationalize that if such weapons must exist, then it's better in our hands, which we trust and which we can control.

The illusion is in thinking that anyone is going to ask our opinion or that we have any degree of control over such weapons. That's the truly frightening part about it all, because if such weapons are ever used, it won't be because people have discussed it beforehand.

Gerhard Adam | 07/06/12 | 20:42 PM

Link

Why would you expect to be asked if it was okay? And there's nothing to stop you from discussing it, and I'd say that it is one thing that makes America different from many places around the globe, we can discuss it in open.
And like Justice Roberts recently stated, if we don't like the legislation our representatives enacted, we should do out duty and vote new ones into office.

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/09/12 | 08:49 AM

Link

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Legislators that aren't taking their responsibilities seriously, thereby allowing all manner of actions to be taken that are constitutionally questionable. I certainly agree that people need to vote for new representation when the current is not doing what they should. I have no quarrel with you there.

I would very much expect the government to ask people before engaging in some irrevocable direction in war which has never been formally approved by congress.

Gerhard Adam | 07/09/12 | 12:24 PM

Link

You mean like using Stuxnet in what could be described as an act of war?

I'm not sure I want the "people" to know, and with a representative government, I suspect they won't bother to ask.

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/09/12 | 14:33 PM

Link

Sorry, but that's a pretty arrogant position to take. The idea that our government could engage in an "act of war" while its citizens are in ignorance defies reasoning.

We've tried others for war crimes for lesser reasons, and yet you're arguing that this is somehow an intrinsic right of the American political system?

Gerhard Adam | 07/09/12 | 15:09 PM

Link

You don't consider the use of Stuxnet on Iranian computers an act of War? And i know they didn't ask us if it was okay first.

But besides all of this, yes I think it's an intrinsic right of an representative government, we elected representatives to represent us. Which would include secret missions that could be construed as an act of War.
Now, I also think there aren't many in government who would commit an aggressive act of war without first explaining the need.

But, consider:
The killing of Bin Laden.
The attempted rescue of Iranian hostages.
Stuxnet.
Drone attacks in Pakistan.

And these are just the ones I know about and could think of.

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/09/12 | 15:37 PM

Link

I'm not suggesting that government gain specific mission approval, but they should certainly have approval before engaging on a particular course of action with a particular nation.

Government has no "rights", which makes your comment interesting because it suggests that the entire premise of a representative government is merely to go through the motions of representation while denying information to the people they're supposed to represent.

The killing of Bin Laden. - This was no secret and a clearly stated objective of the U.S. government.

The attempted rescue of Iranian hostages. - This is a response towards an act of aggression to the U.S. government.

Stuxnet. - This is a potential "act of war" and we shouldn't be naive enough to believe this comes without consequences. If Iran were to attempt something similar to the U.S. regarding cyber-warfare we'd have no one to blame except ourselves.

Drone attacks in Pakistan. - Again, don't be surprised when other nations use our own "rules" against us and then claim we have no basis for claiming insult.

Gerhard Adam | 07/09/12 | 15:48 PM

Link

When was the last time we got to vote on whether a military operation should be done or not?

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/09/12 | 16:03 PM

Link

I thought I was pretty clear that I wasn't referring to operations, but rather policies. I don't expect military decisions or even specific political decisions to be made by committee or public forum. I do expect general policy decisions and policy directions to be subject to discussion.

Gerhard Adam | 07/09/12 | 22:37 PM

Link

I can be slow, give me an example of the kind of Policy you expect to asked for approval on.

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/10/12 | 09:09 AM

Link

Sure. If the U.S. had indicated that it was going to follow a provocative policy towards Iran up to and including potential "acts of war" just short of military action, then that's a policy decision. Such a thing certainly shouldn't be left up to a minority to determine.

The Constitution is clear that it grants Congress the authority to declare war. It also follows that the Nuremberg Trials established that it was insufficient justification for any personnel to claim that they were merely "following orders", then it must follow that the government of any country does not represent the final authority over what actions it may elect to take. Therefore in a country like the U.S., such policy decisions must have the approval of the general electorate.

Anything else is clearly a double standard and suggests that the U.S. feels itself exempt from the laws it chooses to prosecute others for.

Gerhard Adam | 07/10/12 | 10:15 AM

Link

I think your logic is tenuous at best.
The US has been at odds with Iran for sometime, including attempts to get UN sanctions, and I'd be shocked if the CIA didn't make unauthorized visits there. The President being the Commander in Chief has control of the Military, up to but not including "War", without Congress approval, and even that boundary is gray due to the War Powers Act.

I see the President and maybe Congress as the final authority, and no where requiring the general electorate approval, and in no time that I can remember has the electorate voted any such approval.

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/10/12 | 12:21 PM

Link

As I said. We operate on a "might makes right" policy basis, and consequently whatever we do is largely because we recognize that no one has the power or authority to hold us accountable.

You already know we're not nearly as understanding when another government tries to do the same things. You may well think that that's they way things are, and that simply goes with the territory. OK, but then let's not pretend that we're somehow "the good guys". We're doing what we want, because we can get away with it. Nothing more.

I am quite confident that if the U.S. were anything less than a major world power, we would not be doing the things we do, and we certainly wouldn't be getting away with it so easily. However, there's no question that we wield tremendous military and economic might, so we tend to do as we please.

Gerhard Adam | 07/10/12 | 12:48 PM

Link

I tend to agree with much of this, though I also in general think we are the "good guys", at least in most circumstances.

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/10/12 | 13:19 PM

Link

Perhaps, but even a benevolent dictator is still a dictator.

Gerhard Adam | 07/10/12 | 13:27 PM

Link

True, but few places on Earth give it's people more autonomy than we get, Though we sure do have to get a lot of government approval to open something as simple as a lemonade stand these days. But that's because we keep asking the government to protect us from those nasty corporations.

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/10/12 | 14:17 PM

Link

Funny, how we never hear that complaint when corporations use government to protect themselves from the citizens. Somehow that's simply viewed as shrewd or prudent.

Gerhard Adam | 07/10/12 | 14:24 PM

Link

since that is basically a suicide pact with any attacker

That's why a handful isn't sufficient, it has to be a "suicide pact" to be a deterrent.

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/09/12 | 08:33 AM

Link

but you would never see it reach zero

Never is a long time.

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/09/12 | 08:51 AM

Link

...a few hundred or a thousand or so seems to be a reasonable way point...

Tee-hee, you so funny.

Quentin Rowe | 07/06/12 | 17:07 PM

Link

Current talks.

Russia is already down to 1,492 deployed warheads, the US is still at 1,737, but the current talks seem to think 1,000-1,100 is a reasonable number, and the low range would be 300-400, so I could see that number in a decade or so. These are also the deployed weapons, not necessarily the number that exists.

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/09/12 | 08:39 AM

Link

I saw this and couldn't resist the example of the title:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/stuxnet-expert-calls-us-the-good-guys-in-cyber-warfare/

I guess this is the 21st century equivalent of the benevolent dictator. Of course, this is closely followed by the "Trust us ... we'll be good".
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/here-comes-skynet-army-drones-almost-ready-to-share-sky-with-airlines/

Gerhard Adam | 07/06/12 | 10:23 AM

Link

I just thought I'd add this link of a time-lapse graphic of all the atomic detonations let off by all the crazies...

Quentin Rowe | 08/09/12 | 02:44 AM

Link

Comments

Know Science And Want To Write?

What's Happening

Books By Writers Here

Related Articles on Science 2.0

Comments

Know Science And Want To Write?

What's Happening

Books By Writers Here